16' Keel boat-high performance

Sdb

Stephen, at some point someone asked about the Bongo-it's not even close to what I have evolved to primarily since it seems to me it is designed to be sailed flat yet if it is sailed flat the ballast isn't contributing. But I think it is a cool boat.
Your position on Bethwaite's boat(and I guess ,by extension, on the winged SDB I have proposed) is unfortunate because ,in my opinion ,it is not a black and white cut and dried issue. It is an issue that will keep on coming up, however, and it's awfully hard for me to understand how anybody can call a ballast keel equipped boat with on-deck sliding ballast and with self -righting characteristics a multihull just because it has buoyancy pods that aren't used in the normal course of sailing and add no speed to the boat. It's not semantics and it's not dopy: it is a new form of sailboat with more in common technically with a monohull than with a multihull.
Whatever it's called it has a lot of potential both with and without foils in both large and small sizes-quite an exciting area of development to me.

 

It's not so much a position on Bethwait's boat, or yours, as a position on bending language in the service of some perceived marketing advantage. It's the kind of B.S. people put to sea to get away from.

Why can't it be both a good idea and a trimaran? Just call it a self-righting trimaran and have done with it, man! That sure is what it looks like, and people don't like to be told not to believe what they see.

 

Normal Course of Sailing

Hi Doug,

If the boat in question does not use the pods in the normal course of sailing, just what serviceable function do they provide?

It looks to me that you've added extra weight and complexity to the build cycle for something that you say is not going to be part of the sailing process. So, are they or aren't they an integrated element of the overall function of the boat and, if so, why be so cagey about the description?

If they do serve a useful and integrated function, what's the problem with just simply addressing the issues and getting on with the process of including the need of the pods in the discussion of the boat and its performance?

I don't understand why you feel it necessary to propose things that are outside the loop, so to speak, of more accepted boating norms and then get bent when someone wants to know why you have positioned your argument in that fashion.

That kind of dance speaks to a certain, unsure quality, regarding the person making the original presentation. Sophisticated observers immediately want to know, why the song and dance, when a simple and direct approach will address the issues satisfactorily.

From my personal perspective, I think the boat sounds very interesting and could very well be fun to sail, even though not all developmental ideas on bigger boats can be effectively translated to smaller craft such as the one you propose.

This isn't about me being negative about new stuff or development of sailing products outside the envelope. I support new stuff and the development of same. Many of the boats I design are clearly outside of what has come before them, so pushing the boundaries is not something that has a negative value attached at all. This position is about the manner of the presentation of the new stuff. Until the smokescreen thing is gone, the issues surrounding the boat, itself, can never be properly gotten to.

Chris

 

monohull?

Stephen, there is no perceived marketing advantage, that I can think of, in describing a boat that has a ballasted fixed keel as well as on-deck sliding ballast as a monohull instead of calling it a trimaran just because it has buoyancy pods the ARE NOT USED in normal sailing.
In fact with the popularity of multihulls it might be an advantage to call it a multihull! But technically it sails like a monohull, is self righting like a monohull and could use a monohull hydrofoil system. This exact same discussion has taken place in the Moth class(see links under "Foiler 1 GP" or go to the UK Moth site): is a Moth a trimaran if it has buoyancy pods that aren't normally used? Is the new M4 a monohull or a trimaran since it sails on just two foils and doesn't use the pods at all in the normal course of sailing-only at pre takeoff? When Simon Maguire talks about buoyancy pods is he talking about a trimaran or a monohull? And when all the technical aspects of Bethwaites boat or my SDB/winged ballast boat describe a boat that sails like a monohull is it right to describe it as a trimaran when the "hulls" aren't used like the hulls of a trimaran are?
Personally , it makes no difference to me what my winged SDB is called: it's an entirely new kind of dinghy that will be a blast for both disabled and able bodied sailors. But when you look at boats like Langmans, Bethwaites and the Out 95 group this discussion may become important because the answer to their description is not and should not be so black and white, in my humble opinion. The question has real relevance when ratings are to be considered because if a boat sails using the physics of a monohull yet appears to look like a trimaran should it be rated on the basis of how it actually performs or on what it looks like?
Is this a trimaran?
The M4 concept
http://www.sailm4.co.uk/index.php?page=gallery&set=

 

But if you call the duck a duck, it would not be allowed to race against mono-hulls. It would have to race against other multi-hulls and have its *** handed to it in a sling.

The only reason that RGYD exists is to try to circumvent the no multi-hull narrow mindedness of traditional rule makers.

Why would anyone go to all the trouble of moving ballast systems and semantic wars over the side hulls only to end up with a boat that still has to haul lead around? Hauling dead weight is slow. It always has been, it always will be. These things are rule beaters. They rely on rule bending to begin with.

 

SDB's

Bull! The fact is that movable ballast is in the greatest traditions of sailing from long ago to probably the fastest sailboat under 20': the Moth.(Of course the crew is movable ballast!)
The combination of fixed ballast to provide self righting and pitchpole proofing with on-deck sliding ballast and buoyancy pods for additional safety is new; a concept that potentially allows speeds(especially with a bi-foil hydrofoil system) similar to current multihulls with the selfrighting characteristics of a monohull. That is a NEW WAY TO SAIL!!!
My winged SDB allows a disabled or able bodied person to sit low in the boat and still have the experience of sailing really fast-very much faster than any current "sit-in" small keelboat.
As far as these boats being rule beaters: first they are a new concept in sailing using proven technologies in a unique way.Second, as far as I know the only boat that meets the ISAF(or IRC?) definition of a monohull is the Out95. But is that definition outmoded? It wouldn't surprise me to see the definitions in the rules amended to reflect the technical realities of these new boats.For crying out loud: we're talking about new high performance boats that combine(potentially) the speed of current multihulls with the safety of a ballasted keelboat!! It seems preposterous to me that any technically knowledgeable sailor or designer would want to define a self righting keelboat as a multihull just because it has buoyancy pods that are not used except in emergencies.
And,again, the use of sliding on-deck ballast combined with self righting and ,perhaps, hydrofoils is a powerful new combination of many proven ideas into a new type of extremely fast sailboat-whatever you call it.

 

Wooooeee!

Sliced Bread I

No working example, no investors, nothing more than drawings and lots of hype

Sliced Bread II

No working example, no investors and not even a set of drawings. Oh did we miss the hype?.... Nope, there's plenty of that to go around, as well.



I can't wait for Sliced Bread III. Coming soon to a forum near you.

When you add it all up; Suddenly, the Bourgeoisie Project stacks-up pretty well against the competition. Please go build the boat. I'm guessing what, another 15 large, or more, for the privilege of discovering that the boats that are already out there are more fun to drive?

 

Crew = Human

Ballast = Lead

if Crew = Ballast , then Crew = Lead, and Human = Lead.

I've never seen Lead sail a boat.

We are right back to sandbaggers, canting keels, and sliding deck ballast not being legal under Rule 51. That makes them violations of a basic rule of sailing. True, groups of rule beaters/benders/cheaters can alter Rule 51 under Rule 86.1.

It is not a surprise that some boats that break Rule 51 are faster than most boats than don't break the rule. What is absolutely hilarious is that many Rule 51 legal boats can sail circles around the rule beaters.

No question, Rube Goldberg contraptions are a hoot. I have no doubt that they will provide a great ride and a good show for spectators. The VOR is proof that a RG rule, supports RGYD. It also prompts good sailors to walk off boats in fear for their lives.

Great idea to have a canting/sliding ballast boat so physically challenged people can sail. Comparing such a system to a real sailboat is like comparing a racing wheelchair to a pair of Nike's.

The only problem I have is when someone tries to tell me that these things should be allowed to race against true sailboats. It really bugs me when the people that support these things that require bent/broken rules also ban completely legal boats from racing.

It is too bad that the basic rules ban the RGYD's. If someone ever builds one that is actually faster than a fully compliant boat, they will have earned the right to whinge about being excluded ... oh ... wait ... I have that backwards.

The people that are behind RGYD are the same people that decided using your brain instead of lead was not legal when they started banning catamarans and other non-traditional solutions. Am I now to believe that this narrow minded group is behind progress? These people are so dead set against multi-hulls that they are allowing moving ballast and powered systems in a feeble attempt to built fast "sail"boats. Now the things have ama's and we are being told not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain and call them pods.

The damn boat is a trimaran.

 

trimaran?

Or keelboat? I can't believe that you are so willing to ignore the technical reality of how these boats actually work......
--------------------
An earlier discussion on this subject; includes shots of both Bethwaites and Langmans versions:
Mono or Multi? New type of ocean racer? - Boat Design Forums
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9170
------------------------------
Out 95
Out and Out Solutions - OUT95 - Highly Efficient Wave Piercing Yacht Design
http://www.out95.com/concept.html

 

Now we're talking, a sailing submarine! LMAO!

 

if it is a monohull, the buoyancy pods are completely unneccasary, and therefore the designer and sailor(s) should have no objection to the removal of them from the hull. If they object to the removal of the buoyancy pods it tells you something. I dont seem to recall any monohull sailors complaining about the risk of their boats broaching and wanting to hook something to the hull to prevent this reality.

 

If you take away the pods, the canting keel and the sliding deck ballast, you are left with nothing "new" to get a patent on. With no patent, you can't sit back and wait to sell licenses when someone actually gets your RG design to work. (Not that anyone with any relationship to sailing would use that as a business model.)

 

Re "Frank Bethwaite called his HSP a trimaran because of the small pods but they were used in sailing the boat and did provide RM when sailing at speed."

No, Doug, the HSP's floats did NOT provide RM when sailing at speed unless you made a mistake. The whole concept was that you sailed on the main hull and the floats were only there as training wheels. In other words, they were used for exactly the same purpose as the floats on the Julian/Billoch big boat.

There was a smaller earlier Aussie boat called the Tri Fli that was sailed in exactly the same manner. Again, it was called a TRIMARAN despite the fact that it was normally sailed only on the main hull.

This information about the HSP and Tri Fli comes from my experience sailing one of Frank's HSPs, and from sailing Tri Flis. In both cases I spoke at length and on the record for publication with the designers whom I had known for some time. Frank B. and John Bowen (Tri Fli designer) where quite explicit that their boats were designed to be sailed on the main hull, but both called them tris.

Re "probably the fastest sailboat under 20': the Moth."

Strange, that's not what Rohan seems to claim......

 

HSP's

CT249- since I've never sailed Mr. Bethwaites HSP nor do I know him personally I had to rely on my only source of info on those cool machines: his book "High Performance Sailing". In each picture of the HSP in that book the planing pods are , in fact, touching the water.
Additionaly, the HSP's differ in a most MAJOR way from the Bethwaite/Billoch and Langman concepts(and from my winged SDB discussed at length earlier) in that the newer "ocean racer's"(and my proposed winged SDB)
are BALLASTED having either a fixed or canting keel and in the Bethwaite case having sliding on-deck ballast as well.
It's amusing to me that anyone with any technical knowledge of sailing yacht design would want to call a ballasted keelboat a "trimaran" just because it has buoyancy pods that are strictly for safety- emergency backup purposes.
=====================
edit-- But, as you point out, the question goes to boats ballasted by the crew only as well: there is no way, in my opinion, that any reasonable person could describe the M4(see previous link) as a trimaran even though it has buoyancy pods. In that case no picture shows the buoyancy pods in use whereas in the HSP case every picture shows them being used. It seems to me that the designed for use of the pods in each case MUST be different. And that's an important difference: in one case they are apparently needed thru out the wind range in light and heavy air; in the other case the pods are only needed to some extent when the boat is not foilborne.
CT249- do you think the M4 is a trimaran?
-------------------
As to the Moth: the word PROBABLY is the key to my comment. If it's not the fastest sailboat under 20' today , it's likely to be tomorrow....

 

The HPS pics clearly show that the HSP Duo on p 319 is clearly sailing only on the main hull; the lee hull is at least a foot out of the water. The lee hull on p 261 is also out of the water although partly obscured by splash from the main hull.

On p 187 the earlier HSP is touching the lee hull over a length of about 15". That is providing negligible lift especially as that version had quite floppy beams (intentionally) and therefore when the one of the floats touched down the first thing that happened was that the beams bent, before any appreciable RM was added to the boat. In the original of those pics it's obvious that it's quite windy (as you can see from the spray) and Julian has just got it a little bit off upright, which was the way it was meant to be sailed. The float would just skip, plane, and then you'd catch the boat again and sail it upright once more (or heeled to windward). But as I mentioned the whole concept was that the boat sailed on the main hull normally.

If a monohull is defined as a boat that only uses the pods for "safety-emergency backup purposes", how does the definition work? How often can they let the pods touch the water before the "mono" becomes a tri? If the pods touch the water when the boat is stalled coming in to start (as you often let wings or Canoe planks touch the water) is the boat then a tri?

If the pod touches the water once each beat and each bad tack, is it a tri? What about if it touches 5 times up a beat; is it a tri?

Bethwaite's HSP often had the floats dragging when sailed by inexperienced people, but not when it was sailed by experienced sailors. Was it a tri when poor sailors were on it and a mono when it was sailed upright? Was it a tri when you were chilling out and let a float lie in the water, and a mono when you were concentrating?

Where is the point when it stops being "strictly for emergency use" and starts becoming a normal float and the boat becomes a tri?

Who is going to judge that point?

Do we just ignore design features that are "just emergency devices" when we define a boat?